zlacker

>>orph+(OP)
Can any users give their opinion on how it's helping their productivity? What problems are they finding, if any?

>>ipnon+V5
I only played around with it on OpenAI but it's the same model as far as I know. It's pretty good at regurgitating algorithms it's seen before. It's not good at all at coming up with new algorithms.

It's very good at translating between programming languages, including pseudocode.

It can write a lot more valid code much quicker than any human, and in a whole slew of languages.

I haven't had the urge to use it much after playing around with it constantly for a few days, but it was pretty mind-blowing.

>>etaioi+E9
Your response makes me wonder if poisoning the well is possible by submitting code to Github with multiple languages and coding styles. A single file with a function signature written in Javascript and the body written in Python + Ruby. Enough code would surely break the AI model behind it. Unless Copilot has some sort of ingestion validation which wouldn’t surprise.

>>yeptha+Ja
In any training with code I've done, we've written a parser that validates against tree sitter grammars to make sure it's at least syntactically valid against some known subset of languages we're training on.

>>Grimm1+dc
I’m which case shifting strategies toward code that looks correct but isn’t using shared syntax between languages as well as language specific gotchas.

>>yeptha+He
Yeah but if malicious intent is a concern you can just spin up a sandboxed instance to run the code to check first.

Really the thing is there's not way to ascribe correctness to a piece of code right, like humans fail at this even. The only "correct" code is like rote algorithmic code that has a well defined method of operation. And there's likely a lot more correct examples of that, like way more than you'd ever be able to poison.

You may be able to be misleading though by using names that say one thing but do another, but again you'd be fighting against the tide of correctly named things.